A Verdict That Demands Evidence

I have had a particularly tiring day at work, so I'll ask for a little more time on my rock music post.

Until then, I will briefly respond to Ransom's last post.

No I did not limit the definition to the comtemporary understanding. I understand it in the sense that it is meant in the KJV, and the comtemporary understanding is contained in in that meaning. The Greek simply has more depth and a broader scope, but our contemporary understanding is there. We get our word "homily" from it.

A homily is a lecture or discourse on a moral theme, and John Calvin read homilia that way when commenting upon 1 Cor. 15:33:

Matthew Henry also included our contemporary understanding commenting upon the verse, saying:

Adam Clarke:

The picture is of well-meaning Christians going to hear presentations on this or that subject. It is the consensus of Biblical scholars that Paul was quoting an ancient Greek playwrite, Menander, when he said "Evil communications corrupt good manners," and Christians were frequenting the theatres and the talk shows. They were going to hear celebrities deliver "homilies" much like they do today. That is what is meant by "association" or "company." Paul was saying that Christians should abstain from these types of associations because the worldly philosophies contained therein would corrupt them.

And so you can plainly see, that though homilia is richer than logos, "speech," the idea of logos is there, and so much more.

Therefore it is not I who has committed your afore mentioned fallacies. It is you. You are using the wrong definition of "company." You are "companion," though that idea is not present. You thereby also substitute the contemporary definition of the word when the archaic was intended.

[ April 05, 2002, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Still at the factory. Don't know when I'll be home, but will make my post shortly after I arrive.

Didn't want to be accused of stalling.

----------------------
Okay. It's 10:06 PM where I'm at. Finally got home to kiss the kiddies and tuck them in.

As promised:

Why do I call Rock music "sensual?"

History

Rock music from the beginning has been considered the musical equivalent of inordinate sex. Long before the term was used to describe music, rock as a profane term for sexual intercouse. Roll was a profane term for the sexual organ of both the man and the woman. The terms were combined (rock 'n' roll) as yet another profane way of saying the F-word.

Its effects

Rock music speaks to the body. It is no accident that the term was used to name this style of music. The dance movements inspired by rock music are overtly sexual. One needs no special education to see that. One needs only to observe the differences between the behaviors in the audiences of a Ricky Martin concert and a concert of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra. One group is temperate, well behaved. The other is riotous. I don't mean in the warring sense; I mean in the party-animal sense. This is the sense condemned by St. Peter when he said:

This is also the kind of riot the Prodigal Son spent his inheritence on, Luke 15:13. Yet this conduct is wholly consistent with the moods communicated by rock music.

Michael Ventura in his celebrated history of rock music, Hear that Long Snake Moan* said this:

In another place Ventura contrasted the somatic effects of rock and non-rock music saying:

Its associations

"Sex, Drugs, Rock 'n' Roll!" Need I elaborate?

The testimonies of the performers Remember, secular musicians admit they want to promote rebellion and sensuality, and purposely create musical techniques to accomplish this.

*I have uploaded Michael Ventura's history to the web. Click here to view it

[ April 06, 2002, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

To prevent this thread from degenerating into mob accusations, I am reasserting my option as moderator to close this thread to all but Ransom and me.

This is only for this thread, and I will create no other exclusive threads in the future, but those who have followed the discussions in the Music Forum will see the rationale behind this action.

Any posts by any other but Ransom and myself will be zapped.

 

Objection overruled.

Now, do you have a rebuttal?

 

Communication is more than simply verbal, but one cannot exclude the verbal (by this I mean the communication of ideas through words or sign language) as a crucial and integral element in the process. That is what you attempted to do in your first rebuttal. My reply was to demonstrate that the idea of verbal communication is not excluded from homilia but is very much a part of it. And I did demonstrate it. But there is so much more implied here which you want to exclude, but you cannot. Homilia is intercouse, and that covers a broad range of methods: styles of dress, mannerisms, ways of speaking, and yes, their styles of music.

So it appears that Henry is saying Paul is actually concerned with conduct first, conversation second.

Whether conduct has the priority here is not the dispute. It is certainly included, as I said above and in previous posts. Never disputed that. Was only saying that conversation cannot be excluded as you attempted to do. But speech is central to the idea. Not limited to speech only, but speech is central. Preachers are taught homiletics.

In other words, two out of three of your commentators actually agree with my take on 1 Cor. 15:33, not yours; as for your third commentator, a subsequent editor also agrees with me that homilias means primarily company and secondarily communication.

No, your take as originally stated attempted to exclude the contemporary understanding. Again, my point was to show that the contemporary understanding is present and central to the idea, though not limited to it.

Look at your quotation from Charles Hodge:

Again, speech is central to the idea.

And only in Barclay's commentary is the focus exclusively upon keeping company with such. But what does it mean to keep company? How can I keep company without communication in the modern sense of the word? So you see, "conveying a message" is central and foundational to the idea of homilia

But you misrepresent me. I do not limit the term to mere verbal communication. You have merely proven my point that homilia is a very broad term just like our word communication, and it includes all kinds of intercouse. How could I apply it to music otherwise?

So really, the question isn't the meaning of the word Homilia so much as what is music. Is music a form of intercouse or not?

I cited Scripture and other authorities to show that it is. Deal with them.

[ April 10, 2002, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Allright. Just for kicks let's say that you can exclude all the ideas contained in the disputed word and limit it solely to "a being together, companionship."

What have you limited it to? Nothing at all. One cannot be a companion without intercourse. There are varying degrees of intercourse, but intercourse cannot NOT happen when two people are in each other's presence, whether it be verbal or non-verbal. And certainly being a companion implies some degree of intimacy.

So all the ideas which you attempt to exclude are implicit. You can't get around it, try as you might.

Now, is music a form of intercourse? I cited Scripture and other authorities to show that it is. Deal with them.

[ April 11, 2002, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Ransom,

As I have pointed out, the maxim, "Evil communications corrupt good manners," has many applications.

Paul took a general principle and applied it to the specific situation in Corinth, but it is intended to be applied to any sort of intercourse, including music.

Do you think "Do not muzzle the ox that treads the corn" applies only to paying preachers?

There, I have dealt with it. Now, could you please move on?

 

Ransom,

It's been almost a week since your last post in this thread.

Are you finished?

 

Well, this thread died.

Anyone can post to his heart's content. I'm done.

 

Don't know why you are the one bumping this up. Ransom was soundly defeated at every turn.

Thanks, though.

 

I had several PM's at the time that said otherwise. But thanks again.

God Bless.